Anything about the road? The nearby very short US 44 freeway has a speed limit of 65.
Before NMSL, the speed limit on MA 3 from Braintree to Plymouth was 60 mph. At some point after NMSL was repealed, the limit was raised back to 60.
IIRC, it's the only 60 MPH zone in all of New England, NY, NJ, PA, and DE. I haven't seen another 60 MPH zone northeast of Maryland (I-795, and a stretch of I-83 just north of the Beltway, have a 60 MPH limit).
I have seen photographic evidence of I-95 in the Orange/West Haven area having a "Speed Limit 60" pre-NMSL, but outside of that, MA 3 is the only place I've seen for myself a SL 60 in New England.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 06, 2020, 11:35:05 PM
IIRC, it's the only 60 MPH zone in all of New England, NY, NJ, PA, and DE. I haven't seen another 60 MPH zone northeast of Maryland (I-795, and a stretch of I-83 just north of the Beltway, have a 60 MPH limit).
The DE-1 freeway through Dover is posted at 60 mph.
Additionally, the northern segment of DE-1 between I-95 and US-13 was recently increased from 55 mph to 60 mph.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 06, 2020, 10:41:50 PM
Anything about the road? The nearby very short US 44 freeway has a speed limit of 65.
I wouldn't call 10 miles "very short", long enough to be able to handle a continued speed like that. Either way, both roads should be reasonably posted at 65 mph, not one or the other.
The other issue is why US 3 from Burlington to the NH border is still posted 55mph. The road, while heavily trafficked can certainly handle 65 or at least 60. I 93 is 65 all the way down to Medford and traffic is as bad, if not worse than US 3.
Quote from: ProfBrad on May 07, 2020, 08:35:43 AM
The other issue is why US 3 from Burlington to the NH border is still posted 55mph. The road, while heavily trafficked can certainly handle 65 or at least 60. I 93 is 65 all the way down to Medford and traffic is as bad, if not worse than US 3.
According to someone at MassDOT that I talked to in person, it is because the police won't allow it.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 06, 2020, 11:35:05 PM
IIRC, it's the only 60 MPH zone in all of New England, NY, NJ, PA, and DE. I haven't seen another 60 MPH zone northeast of Maryland (I-795, and a stretch of I-83 just north of the Beltway, have a 60 MPH limit).
When MaineDOT raised speed limits statewide around 2014, a variety of 55 mph zones on freeways went up to 60, including I-195 (https://goo.gl/maps/n4H6zVWq2G2KVtVFA), the Scarborough Connector (https://goo.gl/maps/JyFr4TobvKyG4faS7), I-95 (https://goo.gl/maps/ZCsBos5gBprCt26u9) through Portland (though I think it's lower through the current widening project work zone), the Falmouth Spur (https://goo.gl/maps/FMeutsjyeoLiDPYAA), US 1 (https://goo.gl/maps/zjeqnWF3aVFZCBzp6) between Brunswick and Bath, and I-395 (https://goo.gl/maps/kUT44nYK8hS2FHVi8) in Bangor. So that's one more New England state that posts 60.
Quote from: 1 on May 07, 2020, 08:40:59 AM
Quote from: ProfBrad on May 07, 2020, 08:35:43 AM
The other issue is why US 3 from Burlington to the NH border is still posted 55mph. The road, while heavily trafficked can certainly handle 65 or at least 60. I 93 is 65 all the way down to Medford and traffic is as bad, if not worse than US 3.
According to someone at MassDOT that I talked to in person, it is because the police won't allow it.
That sounds like a MassDOT cop-out (pun intended) answer. If state troopers have that much pull, we really have a problem in our state.
Police have no involvement. Speed zones are approved by MassDOT and the RMV (and the town/city on non-state highways).
Here's the procedure explained: https://www.mass.gov/doc/procedures-for-speed-zoning-on-state-and-municipal-roadways/download [PDF]
The state police could voice their concern, but MassDOT does not need their approval.
This person I talked to was pretty high up, and he personally supports increasing it to 65. I have no reason to believe he's lying.
Quote from: ProfBrad on May 07, 2020, 08:35:43 AM
The other issue is why US 3 from Burlington to the NH border is still posted 55mph. The road, while heavily trafficked can certainly handle 65 or at least 60. I 93 is 65 all the way down to Medford and traffic is as bad, if not worse than US 3.
I don't think I-93 is 65 inside 128. I might be wrong though.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 07, 2020, 10:30:59 AM
Quote from: ProfBrad on May 07, 2020, 08:35:43 AM
The other issue is why US 3 from Burlington to the NH border is still posted 55mph. The road, while heavily trafficked can certainly handle 65 or at least 60. I 93 is 65 all the way down to Medford and traffic is as bad, if not worse than US 3.
I don't think I-93 is 65 inside 128. I might be wrong though.
Exit 33 - 37 inside of I-95 / MA-128 is 65 mph. The rest south of there though is 55 mph.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 07, 2020, 12:20:06 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 07, 2020, 10:30:59 AM
Quote from: ProfBrad on May 07, 2020, 08:35:43 AM
The other issue is why US 3 from Burlington to the NH border is still posted 55mph. The road, while heavily trafficked can certainly handle 65 or at least 60. I 93 is 65 all the way down to Medford and traffic is as bad, if not worse than US 3.
I don't think I-93 is 65 inside 128. I might be wrong though.
Exit 33 - 37 inside of I-95 / MA-128 is 65 mph. The rest south of there though is 55 mph.
Slows further to 45 through the tunnel, tho nobody goes that slow if there isn't traffic.
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 06, 2020, 11:35:05 PM
IIRC, it's the only 60 MPH zone in all of New England, NY, NJ, PA, and DE. I haven't seen another 60 MPH zone northeast of Maryland (I-795, and a stretch of I-83 just north of the Beltway, have a 60 MPH limit).
PA doesn't have any permanent ones that I know of, but whenever a road with a speed limit of 70 gets a work zone, the work zone limit will be 60, since PA is a "just drop the speed limit by 10 mph regardless of conditions" state.
Quote from: 1 on May 07, 2020, 09:51:19 AM
This person I talked to was pretty high up, and he personally supports increasing it to 65. I have no reason to believe he's lying.
Could it be a MassDOT policy (official or otherwise) to not raise the limit if the police don't support it?
Quote from: 1 on May 07, 2020, 09:51:19 AM
This person I talked to was pretty high up, and he personally supports increasing it to 65. I have no reason to believe he's lying.
I don't think he's lying so much as making an assumption that probably isn't actually true. The MSP may voice their concerns if they hear about a proposed speed limit change, but at no point in the process are they officially involved.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 07, 2020, 02:51:31 PM
Quote from: 1 on May 07, 2020, 09:51:19 AM
This person I talked to was pretty high up, and he personally supports increasing it to 65. I have no reason to believe he's lying.
I don't think he's lying so much as making an assumption that probably isn't actually true. The MSP may voice their concerns if they hear about a proposed speed limit change, but at no point in the process are they officially involved.
Agreed. US 3 from I-95 to I-495 is arguably safer and designed for higher speeds than many Massachusetts freeways posted at 65 MPH. It's also the only stretch I see them doing radar patrol on so I can conceive that this is worrying about a drop in revenue generation.
US 3 north of 128 was redesigned for 70 MPH when it was rebuilt in the early aughts (along with having provisions for a future fourth lane on each carriageway). Nobody drives 55 and I'm sure staties are more than happy to tag people with in-and-out of state plates alike. Driving 55 is likely to get you in more accidents, not less, on that road.
When I regularly commuted on US 3 (I don't anymore, I've since moved and can now take back roads) I repeatedly complained to my state reps about it to no avail. The latest amendment to the law that mandates certain roads to be 65MPH was put up in 2017 but was tabled.
I can't find it (Google is failing me), but one of the studies about the cross-median crashes (which got them to install cable barriers) explicitly called out the low speed limit as a factor for problems on the road.
Curious what the 85th percentile speed is compared to the speed limit.
If it's 15 mph or greater over the speed limit, that is purely an artificial limit.
US-3 should be posted at 65 mph.
I pulled up speed data from the count station just south of Exit 29, and the 85th percentile speed northbound is.... 78! If you look back through the data to pre-COVID days, it varies from 72 to 77. Southbound is 75, going back to pre-COVID days it varies from 69 to 74.
So 85th percentile speeds are roughly 20 mph above the posted limit.
Some of the on-ramps on MA 3, IMO, have too short of an approach to the gore to have an 85th% speed of 65.
But the design of the rest of the freeway is modern, so maybe they thought 55 was to restrictive and went with 60?
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 26, 2020, 12:21:44 AM
Some of the on-ramps on MA 3, IMO, have too short of an approach to the gore to have an 85th% speed of 65.
But the design of the rest of the freeway is modern, so maybe they thought 55 was to restrictive and went with 60?
Unlrelated, but I would support a speed limit of 60 on the Mid-Cape Highway from Exit 1A to 12.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on May 26, 2020, 12:21:44 AM
Some of the on-ramps on MA 3, IMO, have too short of an approach to the gore to have an 85th% speed of 65.
But the design of the rest of the freeway is modern, so maybe they thought 55 was to restrictive and went with 60?
The reply above yours said that the 85th% speed ranges from 70 to 80.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on May 26, 2020, 09:34:32 AMThe reply above yours said that the 85th% speed ranges from 70 to 80.
MA 3 and US 3 are different roads. The speed data I posted is for US 3. I don't know what the 85th-percentile speed is for MA 3.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 07, 2020, 08:43:29 AM
Quote from: jp the roadgeek on May 06, 2020, 11:35:05 PM
IIRC, it's the only 60 MPH zone in all of New England, NY, NJ, PA, and DE. I haven't seen another 60 MPH zone northeast of Maryland (I-795, and a stretch of I-83 just north of the Beltway, have a 60 MPH limit).
When MaineDOT raised speed limits statewide around 2014, a variety of 55 mph zones on freeways went up to 60, including I-195 (https://goo.gl/maps/n4H6zVWq2G2KVtVFA), the Scarborough Connector (https://goo.gl/maps/JyFr4TobvKyG4faS7), I-95 (https://goo.gl/maps/ZCsBos5gBprCt26u9) through Portland (though I think it's lower through the current widening project work zone), the Falmouth Spur (https://goo.gl/maps/FMeutsjyeoLiDPYAA), US 1 (https://goo.gl/maps/zjeqnWF3aVFZCBzp6) between Brunswick and Bath, and I-395 (https://goo.gl/maps/kUT44nYK8hS2FHVi8) in Bangor. So that's one more New England state that posts 60.
I-95 thru Bangor from exit 182 to 185 also has a 60 mph (100 km/h) limit as well.
Three questions I've had is about speed zones in New England for a while now is:
1. I wonder if MA (and more NH) will start approving and posting 70 mph (110 km/h) zones on some freeways, like some portions of the Mass Pike west of 128, or I-95 north of exit 46...
2. Why are 60 mph (100 km/h) speed limits so rare around New England? For example, there are some freeways in NH, like I-93 from 101 to the 293 split that are posted 55 mph (90 km/h), but the flow of traffic is usually around 70-75 mph (110-120 km/h)...
3. Is it true that the New Hampshire Turnpike (I-95) used to have a posted speed limit of 70 mph (110 km/h) before the NSML took in effect?
Quote from: fwydriver405 on May 26, 2020, 03:09:29 PMThree questions I've had is about speed zones in New England for a while now is:
1. I wonder if MA (and more NH) will start approving and posting 70 mph (110 km/h) zones on some freeways, like some portions of the Mass Pike west of 128, or I-95 north of exit 46...
Unlikely. There have been efforts to raise additional speed limits in NH, but they never make it anywhere. The 70 zones on I-93 are specifically written into law, so the legislature would need to act to raise any more. You might see an increase on 89 at some point, but I can't imagine anywhere else.
MA has zero interest in raising any speed limits.
Quote2. Why are 60 mph (100 km/h) speed limits so rare around New England? For example, there are some freeways in NH, like I-93 from 101 to the 293 split that are posted 55 mph (90 km/h), but the flow of traffic is usually around 70-75 mph (110-120 km/h)...
Post-NMSL political inertia mostly. 20 years was long enough for 55 to become the default. You may recall most New England states were reluctant to even return to 65 post-NMSL. The political climate up here is different from out west or down south, and there's just not much support for it.
To address your specific example though, the 93-101 multiplex is just over a mile long, and through traffic on 101 must move over 3 lanes (from left entrance to right exit) in that space. Sure, people speed through there, but I wouldn't be a in a hurry to raise that limit. It's 65 on either side of that stretch (or at least will be again when the construction wraps up), but left entrances with a high volume of weaving traffic are pretty good justification for a lower speed limit.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 27, 2020, 07:00:29 AM
Quote from: fwydriver405 on May 26, 2020, 03:09:29 PMThree questions I've had is about speed zones in New England for a while now is:
1. I wonder if MA (and more NH) will start approving and posting 70 mph (110 km/h) zones on some freeways, like some portions of the Mass Pike west of 128, or I-95 north of exit 46...
Unlikely. There have been efforts to raise additional speed limits in NH, but they never make it anywhere. The 70 zones on I-93 are specifically written into law, so the legislature would need to act to raise any more. You might see an increase on 89 at some point, but I can't imagine anywhere else.
MA has zero interest in raising any speed limits.
The last effort I heard about to expand 70 in NH includied I-89 and NH 101.
It's unfortunate that there aren't more efforts to raise the limit in New England. I can think of several places in MA alone that could use 70. I wish Michigan's speed limit policies were nation-wide.
Quote from: vdeane on May 27, 2020, 01:43:43 PM
I wish Michigan's speed limit policies were nation-wide.
Better yet, Texas. No discrimination between functional class (2-lane, 4-lane, freeway, interstate, etc), just a default 70 mph speed limit with lower limits only posted where determined necessary by a traffic engineering study, many 2 lanes and most 4 lane divided highways, freeways, and interstates usually posted at 75 mph.
I think more 70 zones in New England would be nice, but what would be a much higher priority for me would be higher limits off the 4-lane freeways.
NH in particular builds a lot of very high quality two-lane roads with full shoulders, rumble strips, access control, etc. but only posts them at 50 or 55 mph, and only on >1 mile stretches between signals (through which the limit drops to 40 max). These roads are perfectly comfortable at 60+, and usually driven at such.
This road (https://goo.gl/maps/11npdajCLJqzqmq99) being posted 50, and these (https://goo.gl/maps/E9i2qgmaeXjDs211A) roads (https://goo.gl/maps/2JMvrdproKj54LSH6) (both of which are freeways!) being posted 55 are much more egregious to me than I-89 or NH 101 only being posted 65. Compare to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, two other places that build lots of high quality 2-lanes, where the speed limit would be 100 km/h (or 62 mph). Or compare to New York, where many much lower quality rural roads with no shoulders and poor sight lines are posted 55.
We don't need to go full Texas and post 2-lane roads at 75, but we can do better than 50.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 28, 2020, 08:10:43 AM
I think more 70 zones in New England would be nice, but what would be a much higher priority for me would be higher limits off the 4-lane freeways.
NH in particular builds a lot of very high quality two-lane roads with full shoulders, rumble strips, access control, etc. but only posts them at 50 or 55 mph, and only on >1 mile stretches between signals (through which the limit drops to 40 max). These roads are perfectly comfortable at 60+, and usually driven at such.
This road (https://goo.gl/maps/11npdajCLJqzqmq99) being posted 50, and these (https://goo.gl/maps/E9i2qgmaeXjDs211A) roads (https://goo.gl/maps/2JMvrdproKj54LSH6) (both of which are freeways!) being posted 55 are much more egregious to me than I-89 or NH 101 only being posted 65. Compare to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, two other places that build lots of high quality 2-lanes, where the speed limit would be 100 km/h (or 62 mph). Or compare to New York, where many much lower quality rural roads with no shoulders and poor sight lines are posted 55.
We don't need to go full Texas and post 2-lane roads at 75, but we can do better than 50.
New England is quite timid with two lane road speed limits.
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 28, 2020, 08:10:43 AM
This road (https://goo.gl/maps/11npdajCLJqzqmq99) being posted 50, and these (https://goo.gl/maps/E9i2qgmaeXjDs211A) roads (https://goo.gl/maps/2JMvrdproKj54LSH6) (both of which are freeways!) being posted 55 are much more egregious to me than I-89 or NH 101 only being posted 65. Compare to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, two other places that build lots of high quality 2-lanes, where the speed limit would be 100 km/h (or 62 mph). Or compare to New York, where many much lower quality rural roads with no shoulders and poor sight lines are posted 55.
The stretches of 111 and 101 you linked, I swear I've never even hit the speed limit on those roads if any traffic is around. Raising the limit may be pointless due to timid New England drivers. 111 is not helped by having way too many traffic signals for a road that was supposed to be a faster bypass of an old alignment.
Quote from: SectorZ on June 03, 2020, 08:13:30 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 28, 2020, 08:10:43 AM
This road (https://goo.gl/maps/11npdajCLJqzqmq99) being posted 50, and these (https://goo.gl/maps/E9i2qgmaeXjDs211A) roads (https://goo.gl/maps/2JMvrdproKj54LSH6) (both of which are freeways!) being posted 55 are much more egregious to me than I-89 or NH 101 only being posted 65. Compare to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, two other places that build lots of high quality 2-lanes, where the speed limit would be 100 km/h (or 62 mph). Or compare to New York, where many much lower quality rural roads with no shoulders and poor sight lines are posted 55.
The stretches of 111 and 101 you linked, I swear I've never even hit the speed limit on those roads if any traffic is around. Raising the limit may be pointless due to timid New England drivers. 111 is not helped by having way too many traffic signals for a road that was supposed to be a faster bypass of an old alignment.
NE drivers are timid? Not on the freeways!
^ You need to get outside of Boston more...
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 03, 2020, 11:52:27 AM
Quote from: SectorZ on June 03, 2020, 08:13:30 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 28, 2020, 08:10:43 AM
This road (https://goo.gl/maps/11npdajCLJqzqmq99) being posted 50, and these (https://goo.gl/maps/E9i2qgmaeXjDs211A) roads (https://goo.gl/maps/2JMvrdproKj54LSH6) (both of which are freeways!) being posted 55 are much more egregious to me than I-89 or NH 101 only being posted 65. Compare to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, two other places that build lots of high quality 2-lanes, where the speed limit would be 100 km/h (or 62 mph). Or compare to New York, where many much lower quality rural roads with no shoulders and poor sight lines are posted 55.
The stretches of 111 and 101 you linked, I swear I've never even hit the speed limit on those roads if any traffic is around. Raising the limit may be pointless due to timid New England drivers. 111 is not helped by having way too many traffic signals for a road that was supposed to be a faster bypass of an old alignment.
NE drivers are timid? Not on the freeways!
You'd be surprised. These roads are clogged with traffic at times, and it only takes one person to mess it all up.
Quote from: froggie on June 03, 2020, 12:48:31 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on June 03, 2020, 11:52:27 AM
NE drivers are timid? Not on the freeways!
^ You need to get outside of Boston more...
Of course, probably 95% of the country fits somewhere
between Boston and Vermont on this spectrum. :-D
Quote from: SectorZ on June 03, 2020, 08:13:30 AM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on May 28, 2020, 08:10:43 AM
This road (https://goo.gl/maps/11npdajCLJqzqmq99) being posted 50, and these (https://goo.gl/maps/E9i2qgmaeXjDs211A) roads (https://goo.gl/maps/2JMvrdproKj54LSH6) (both of which are freeways!) being posted 55 are much more egregious to me than I-89 or NH 101 only being posted 65. Compare to Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, two other places that build lots of high quality 2-lanes, where the speed limit would be 100 km/h (or 62 mph). Or compare to New York, where many much lower quality rural roads with no shoulders and poor sight lines are posted 55.
The stretches of 111 and 101 you linked, I swear I've never even hit the speed limit on those roads if any traffic is around. Raising the limit may be pointless due to timid New England drivers. 111 is not helped by having way too many traffic signals for a road that was supposed to be a faster bypass of an old alignment.
I live right off 111 and thus drive it daily. There are certainly a surprising number of people who for some reason never get above 40, but if you get lucky you can pass them. Outside of a few problem areas, there are parts of 111 that really move. On my commute to/from Boston, there are days I hit higher speeds on 111 than anywhere on 93. During rush hour the signals on the 2-lane portion in Windham (where the limit is only 40) back up significantly, as do the signals around Hampstead (particularly 121 and Island Pond/Haverhill), but the stretch I linked to, east of Hampstead heading toward the Kingston bypass, has a 3+ mile stretch with no signals that is a lot less busy. Same goes for west of Windham center, with some 2 mile gaps between signals.
The AADT on 111 around the Hudson/Windham line is north of 15,000, and definitely warrants widening (either full 4-lane or add alternating passing lanes), but even pre-COVID I'd say the vast majority of the time you can easily drive >50 on it. It's a silly idea to suggest speed limits on roads must reflect rush hour traffic conditions.
It's a bit of a tangent, but I do find it a bit depressing that NHDOT doesn't seem to have any desire to make 111 into any sort of efficient through route. Take 93 exit 3 for example: entirely new interchange with both roads on new alignments, and they made it a traditional diamond, despite high left turning volumes. Or just east of there, the pointless 111A bypass, which added another new signal only 500 ft from the existing one. Or the new alignment west of 93 - 4 lane divided, full access control, posted limit 40. Traffic seems to flow at 50-55.
So many wasted opportunities.